Sarjan Singh And Anr. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

The present appeal u/S 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act assails the order dated 30/08/2019 passed by Special Judge(Atrocities) Distt. Guna whereby application preferred by the appellants herein u/S 439 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

The present appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.1-Sarjan Singh is infructuous as there is no person as Sarjan Singh is alleged as accused in the present Crime No.261/2019 and therefore, the appeal so far as it relates to appellant No.1-Sarjan Singh stands dismissed.

The appellant No.2-Mardan Singh has been arrested by Police Station Radhogad, district Guna in connection with Crime No.261/2019 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss.3323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and u/Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the appeal and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.

Appellant No.2- Mardan Singh is in custody since 28/08/2019 and this bail filed against the rejection of his application u/S.439 before the-2-trial Court. AllegationCr..No.7729/2019against appellant No.2 is of uttering abusive words and taking the name of caste of the complainant who happens to be member of SC/ST community in a derisive manner along with assaulting the injured with lathi causing minor injuries.

Considering the fact that investigation in the matter is over and appellant No.2 who has no criminal antecedents is in custody since 28/08/2019, further custodial interrogation of appellant No.2 is not necessary and that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the concept of liberty and and the material placed on record does not discloses the possibility of the appellant fleeing from justice, this Court is inclined to extend the benefit of bail to appellant No.2-Mardan Singh.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 30/08/2019 passed by the trial Court is set aside and this appeal u/S 14(A) (2) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)Act 1989 stands allowed and it is directed that appellant No.2-Mardan Singh be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs. 25,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.

This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by appellant No.2-Mardan Singh:-

The appellant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;

The appellant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;

The appellant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any personCr.A. Noacquainted.7729/2019 with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;

The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;

The appellant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and

The appellant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.

The appellant shall plant 25 saplings of indigenous fruit bearing or shady trees on the side of the road/street of the place of residence of appellant or at any other place in the district which is earmarked by the Collector/Revenue Authority for planting trees and shall take care of the trees for the next one year by watering the plants and by installing tree guards at her own expenses. In case the appellant is unable to afford incurring of such expenses, then he would obtain saplings/tree guard from the forest authorities (the concerned Forest Range Officer of the area) free of cost or at concessional/nominal rates available under any beneficial scheme of the Government. The appellant shall file an affidavit disclosing compliance of this condition within 30 days in the Registry, failing which this court may consider cancellation of bail.

On complying with condition No.7 aforesaid, the appellant is directed to inform the location of plantation made to the Forest Range Officer of the area concerned who will pass on this information to the DFO concerned.

For effective implementation of this order in the interest of betterment of ecology of the area concerned, the District Magistrate of district within which the appellant resides is directed to assist the appellant/accused to comply with condition No.7 by extending all possible financial and material assistance to the appellant admissible under any of the beneficial scheme for afforestation of the State.

The DFO of the concerned District is directed to file verification report before the trial court concerned after carrying out inspection personally or through any other officer of the Forest Department duly authorized in that behalf, disclosing as to whether appellant has complied with condition No.7 or not, and if yes to what extent ?

The learned trial Judge on receiving report of non compliance of condition No.7 shall forthwith communicate the same to Registry of this Court.

The Registry on receiving any such report from the trial Court disclosing default shall put up the matter before appropriate bench in shape of PUD.

A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.

Let a typed copy of this order be also supplied to the counsel for the State for compliance of the aforesaid directives.

A copy of this order be furnished by the Registry of this court to the concerned District Magistrate and the DFO having territorial jurisdiction over the place of residence of the appellant for execution of the order in the interest of the ecology.

For the time being this case stands disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.